I've read most of the letters and editorial comments posted here concerning PR and given that the ballot we received is not clear about what the final product will look like, and the leaders' debate did not help to clarify anything, much of the discussion is pure speculation. I'm left with the sense that we are buying a pig in a poke and that reason alone is enough for me to vote no.
So far, most of the comments are about how unfair the make-up of the provincial legislature is under first past the post (FPTP). In other words we are proposing to change the inputs to the legislature in order, I presume, to obtain better outcomes or outputs.
Few writers have said what better outcomes we might expect to achieve. Given that we are told that numerous countries around the world use some form of PR system my question is, what legislative outcomes have they achieved that we cannot achieve with an FPTP system?
If we switch to PR will we have a better healthcare system? Will it be public or private? Will we have a better education system (again public or private)? Will we solve the opioid crisis, homelessness, or the housing crisis in the Lower Mainland? Will we build bridges, tunnels (with or without tolls) or new ferries? Will we have better environmental practices? In short, will we all live happily ever after?
It's been suggested that PR will increase voter turnout, particularly among young people. Is there any evidence of this? The return rate on the referendum ballots is reportedly low and polls say the vote is split 50/50. If it is true that young people really want this and will vote in Pro Rep elections shouldn't the return rate be higher and the polls indicate this preference?
What will increase is the number of politicians we the taxpayers will have to support. Another reason to vote no.
Roy Olsen
Prince George
